Jose Daniel Centeno-Lopez v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Jose Daniel Centeno-Lopez against immigration officials. The court granted the petition, ordering the petitioner's release and enjoining his redetention without an individualized bond hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus“the Court GRANTS the habeas petition [Dkt. 1]” | agree with court The order relies on the reasoning in Dkt. 5, which is not provided in the text. However, the specific relief ordered (release and bond hearing) is consistent with the Ninth Circuit's holding in Hernandez v. Sessions regarding the unconstitutionality of mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without a bond hearing. Assuming the petitioner is subject to § 1225(b) detention, the grant is legally sound. |
Order release of Petitioner by September 28, 2026“Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner by 5 p.m. on September 28, 2026.” | agree with court This is the standard remedy for a successful habeas petition challenging unlawful detention. The specific date is a procedural matter within the court's discretion. |
Enjoin redetention without an individualized bond hearing“The Court ENJOINS Respondents from redetaining Petitioner during the pendency of his removal proceedings without first providing an individualized bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge where the government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a danger to the community or such a flight risk that no amount of bond or alternative conditions of release “would suffice to ensure his future appearance.”” | agree with court The injunction accurately reflects the holding in Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017), which held that mandatory detention under § 1225(b) without a bond hearing violates the Due Process Clause. The standard of proof (clear and convincing evidence) and the factors to consider (danger, flight risk, financial circumstances) are correctly stated based on Hernandez and Singh v. Holder. |
Vacate the October 1, 2026 hearing“The October 1, 2026 hearing is VACATED.” | agree with court Since the petition is granted and the case is being closed, the pending hearing is moot and properly vacated. |
Close the case“The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.” | agree with court Standard administrative procedure upon final disposition of the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the binding precedent of the Ninth Circuit in Hernandez v. Sessions to the facts of the case (as implied by the citation and the specific injunction terms). The injunction terms are precise and align with the constitutional requirements established in Hernandez. The order is procedurally sound and the relief is appropriate for the legal violation identified.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE DANIEL CENTENO-LOPEZ, Case No.: 26-cv-05092-JO-MMP 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 v. CORPUS [DKT. 1] 15 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 19 20 For the reasons stated at Dkt. 5, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition [Dkt. 1] and 21 ORDERS as follows: 22 1. Respondents shall RELEASE Petitioner by 5 p.m. on September 28, 2026. 23 Respondents shall file an affidavit attesting to Petitioner’s release by 5 p.m. on 24 the following business day. 25 2. The Court ENJOINS Respondents from redetaining Petitioner during the 26 pendency of his removal proceedings without first providing an individualized 27 bond hearing before a neutral immigration judge where the government bears 28 the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a l danger to the community or such a flight risk that no amount of bond or 2 alternative conditions of release “would suffice to ensure his future appearance.” 3 Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 983 (9th Cir. 2017); see id. at 990-91 n.18; 4 see also Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203 (9th Cir. 2011). In setting the 5 amount of bond, the immigration judge must consider Petitioner’s financial 6 circumstances and alternative conditions of release as set forth in Hernandez, 7 872 F.3d at 990-91. The immigration judge shall not deny bond on the basis 8 that (1) 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) requires or authorizes mandatory detention; or 9 (11) BIA precedent deprives the immigration judge of jurisdiction to decide bond. 10 If requested by Petitioner, Respondents shall produce_a_ transcript 11 transcription of the recorded bond hearing. 12 3. Respondents shall file a declaration attesting to full compliance with these 13 obligations. Respondents are ENJOINED from redetaining Petitioner until 48 14 hours after filing the declaration. 15 4. The October 1, 2026 hearing is VACATED. 16 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: September 25, 2026 22 Honorable Jinsook Ohta 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28